There are no "Races" or Sub-species within the Human Species.

The human species definitely exists, but scientific genomic research has shown that there are no "races" or subspecies within the human species.  Since DNA human genome mapping shows that there simply are no subspecies among the human species, it is therefore obvious that there are no subspecies who could be identified by their skin color.

Genomic scientists have discovered that, in many cases, people of different colors have more in common genetically with people of other skin colors than they have in common with others of the same skin color.

Science has proved that the hypothesis of the existence of "races" or subspecies among humans is an anachronistic and anti-empirical, anti-scientific fallacy.

Just as previous generations of humans insisted that the world was flat until the flat earth hypothesis was demolished by empirical experience as well as celestial science, the days of "race" as an scientific hypothesis are over.  Now, "race" remains only as a superstitious believe propounded by those who don't understand science and those who benefit by insisting that scientific discoveries have no relevance in pseudo-scientific conversations.

"Race" surprisingly, is also defended by Blacks and other minorities who are afraid to lose their cultural identities associated with skin color.  They know or seem not to realize that their sociological culture can be loosely associated with their skin colors even though "race" does not exist.  We don't need the fallacy of "race" to explain to us why Americans argue so much about skin color.  Americans argue so much about skin color partly because of the discredited but constantly cited fallacy of "race."

Skin Color Groups Exist, But Distinct "Races" Are a Disproved Fallacy

Someone recently brought to my attention her preoccupation as we see radically color-aroused white antagonists seeking to redefine the term "racism" so that only Blacks can be "racists."

The simplest way to counter these people and leave them with their jaws on the floor is to insist that "racism" does not exist because "race" does not exist. "Race" is an anachronistic disproved hypothesis about the meaning of mere skin color.

What science has discovered is that skin color means . . . skin color. So just as our status now allows us to walk of the same sidewalk with whites and not step down when they come along, so our status as members of the human species enables us to hold our heads up high and reject those who would consign us to an imutable ghetto called "the black race".

We acknowledge that our skin is brown, but we reject the notion that our brown skin makes us members of a separate sub-species of human beings.  All scientific evidence now shows that there are no distinct subspecies of human beings within the human species.

It certainly is astonishing that most of the current ideas about "race" were discovered before DNA has was discovered.  So, when forced to choose, will we accept the notions consistent with findings from the present DNA age, or will we steadfastly hold onto unchanged notions of "race" that were conceived over four hundred years ago, before DNA was discovered?  Is it possible that new DNA human genome evidence is consistent with old beliefs that "races" that could be distinguishes from each other based on skin color?  Read this and decide for yourself.

The word "race" is simply the product of a very successful historical campaign to imbue mere skin-color with all sorts of other meanings about lack of intelligence, laziness, sloth, susceptibility to violence and criminality, etc.

The next time someone tries to talk about your or their own "race," acknowledge that your skin color is different but challenge them with the new scientific evidence that "race" does not exist now and it never existed in the past. Colors DO exist in nature and in science, but "races" exist only in our own minds.

People have been discriminated against based on their skin color and cultural ethnicity. We all know that if your skin was suddenly white, then the police would be less likely to stop you and your kids, i.e. for "driving while Black." The "cue" the officer uses to stop you is not your "race" (he can't see your DNA") but rather your skin color.

Skin color antagonistic behavior has nothing whatever to do with "race", because a police officer can't see your DNA from fifty yards, except to the extent that your DNA makes your skin brown. We don't need the word "race" to describe something so simple.

When Blacks begin to insist, year after year, that "race" simply doesn't exist, then it won't matter bit when whites try to redefine "racism." The word "racism" itself will be consigned to the scrapheap of historical ignorance and irrational "flat earth" concepts, just as you no longer hear people discussing "phrenology" today, although it was very much discussed 150 years ago.

The simple fact is that we are discriminated against because our skin is brown and our votes are sought out but also feared because we are part of a "skin-color-group" that is fairly cohesive in its voting, and that group is called "Black people."

Whenever Black or white people use the word "race", we are perpetuating the scientifically disproved fallacy that there are distinct "races" among human beings. We are effectively lying to ourselves and to others because we believe that the political ends or group-cohesiveness goals justify the anti-scientific means.

The history of science shows that science-related ideas that have no basis in science will eventually be rejected and ejected from science. Can anyone remember when it was believed to be absolutely necessary to separate "Black blood" from "white blood" in blood banks? If you can't remember that, it is only because that patently false misconception was conclusively rejected and ejected from science before you were born.

Eventually Blacks and whites will agree that science has proved that "races" don't exist. I predict that THAT will be the way in which "race" is redefined over the next fifty years. We will all eventually acknowledge that skin color groups exist, but "racial groups" do not.

Francis

When Is White Not White?

Someone at the Uncommon Humanity blog has posed the questions,

I’m starting to be concerned…everyone keeps telling me that people in Indiana are friendly…the hairstylist told me (and she was friendly!), the teachers tell me (oh you’ll like it here, people are so friendly), and I see other folks chatting and waving to each other  from time to time…but so far, I am invisible. When I’m out walking on the neighborhood path, I receive not a word of acknowledgment. No smile. No wave. No nod. Nothing.

Y’all know being friendly requires some outward sign, right?

Or is friendly somehow different here?

Indiana is confusing.

Since I did not make an effort to determine the skin color of the blogger, I am somewhat more able to to respond in a generic fashion that includes the possibility, but does not assume the fact, of skin color-aroused ideation, emotions and behavior toward the blogger asking the question.

The blogger also posed the question, in the blogs header,

"When is white not white?"  

I answer these questions together, below, to the best of my indubitable ability, by posing some questions and giving some well-considered responses that I have synthesized during the last ten minutes based on a lifetime of thinking about this:

First, what is the color of your skin? The US Census Quick Facts say that Indiana is 87.8% white and 9.2% Black.  If all whites treat each other with friendliness, then perhaps 87% of Indianans and the whites who visit them will report that the state is very friendly.  That is a lot of friendliness, indeed.  But, whites might have told each other the same thing about Mississippi during slavery.  From the perspective of other whites, Mississippi was probably pretty friendly during slavery.

I suggest that you ask some Black people whether the white majority in Indiana is friendly to Black people, because that's the relevant question for anyone with brown skin.

I would also note that although there are 9.2% Blacks in Indiana, including in cities like Gary, IN, you might well travel outside a city with a large Black population and see no Blacks at all in the surrounding suburbs.  You might well find that Blacks in Gary have a different opinion about the friendliness shown to Blacks, both in Gary and in the surrounding suburbs, and of other parts of the state, based on their travels and personal experiences.

In 2008, Indiana's Democratic Party Primary voters were fairly friendly to presidential primary candidate and Senator Barack Obama, even though he has brown skin and is regarded as "Black" by many people:

INDIANA RESULTS - 99% Reporting
Clinton
638,192
51%
Obama
615,753
49%

Although President Obama did not win the primary, he found the favor of 49% of its voters in the Democratic Party Primary.  The General Election results are even more in favor of Obama, showing that Obama beat McCain 50% - 49% in the general election, which presumably would have included more whites, since Republicans, too, were participating.  Judging by the 2008 presidential election results, Indiana would appear to be at least half-friendly to half-Black non-whites.

Voting to send a world-famous half-Black man to Washington as President may be a different matter from waving to and saying "hello" to an anonymous Black person on the streets of Indiana.  Never having spent any time there, I cannot offer a personal opinion.  That's probably just as well, because it forces me to look at  more objective indicators of Indianans behavior toward Blacks.

I was just reading the US Government's definition of "disability" and one of the requirements is "being regarded as having such an impairment."  Likewise, you ask above, "When is white not white?"  White is not white when a person "is not regarded as having such an impairment" as the impairment in the United States associated with having skin that is not white.

If relevant professionals, friends, family and neighbors do not regard you as "blind", then you are not disabled by blindness under the US Government's definition of "disability."  Likewise, you are not other than white if you are not "regarded as having such an impairment" as being other than white.

In fact, if you know or suspect that you are "one drop" Black, but no one in your community knows about it, you could still have many psychological problems associated with this dual identity.  But, can you file a discrimination suit against your employer based on skin color or "race" (sic) if your employer doesn't regard you as someone having other than Black skin?

Maybe you can, because if white people around you say derogatory things about Black people in your presence and generally behave like members of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, you can be offended by this even though others do not know that you are a member of the group which they express a desire to completely annihilate.

If you are disabled by a physical impairment that others can perceive, then you may be disabled.  Likewise, if you are sociologically, socially, economically or physically impaired among whites as a result of their perception of your skin color e.g. at work, then maybe you're not a white person.  At least they don't think you are and they treated you accordingly.

If people don't "treat you accordingly", i.e. as other than white, then you are getting many of the benefits associated with white privilege.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN that you are free of the psychological burdens and impairments often associated with knowing that you are "one drop" Black and knowing that some whites would hate and discriminate against you if they were aware of this fact, while Blacks resent you for the special treatment you are being accorded as a result of whites perception that you are not (or are not entirely) Black.

One of the reasons that Barack Obama is not white, is simply the practical fact and the effects of the fact that he is not regarded as being white.  He does not get the privileges of being white that come with "generally being regarded as" being white. 

You're mother might be black is coal, but you are not entirely other than white until and unless others "regard you as having such" a condition of being other than white.  That's just ONE of MANY criteria, but it's a pretty important one.  If no one in your neighborhood and none of the doctors you see regards you as "blind" or "vision impaired", how have you managed to keep it a secret?

The disability statute supposes that it is impossible to keep disability a secret from everyone you know; if, you have an impairment serious enough to be eligible for disability benefits, then relevant people will know about it.  If they don't know, it's because your impairment, if you have one at all, does not rise to the level required for a finding of disability.

Maybe another useful question is, "When are you impaired by not being white?" Obviously there is no one answer to this question because there are many possible criteria, but there are some obvious answers, such as, "You are impaired by not being white when others perceive you as not being white."

US Army Soldier's Brain Injury Aggravates Color-Aroused Speech Behavior

 Behavioral therapy helps limit color-aroused speech.

The Washington Post reports today that a soldier with brain injuries and white skin lost his ability to control color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior and began verbally expressing to Black people whatever ideation came to his mind, after which he experienced the emotion of mirth.

Now, amazingly, Warren, speaking with his same Arkansas drawl, shows flashes of his old self. When Brittanie tells him he's "full of it," he smiles, tickles the top of her head and says, "Yeah, full of Southern pride."

( . . . )

But Barnes can't think about consequences. The mortar round sent shrapnel tearing through his frontal lobe, the region in charge of decision making, reason and morality. As a result, Barnes is impulsive, always in the moment, like an especially reckless 13-year-old. He's 26 but needs round-the-clock supervision.

( . . . )

He beat his life skills coach in bowling, 96-71, Barnes says proudly. But that wasn't his best moment - at least not in the eyes of Josh Shannon, the VA contractor who has worked with Barnes three days a week since he came home from Bethesda three months ago.

The best moment came as Barnes was checking out video games at Wal-Mart. Just then, an overweight African American woman walked by. And Barnes, who is white, said nothing. None of the impulsive, loud comments about her behind or her race that have gotten him in trouble since his injury. Just a once-up-and-down glance and a smirk. Then, only after she was out of earshot, he uttered one quick comment: "Two sacks of potatoes. No, 2.75 sacks."

Shannon celebrated Barnes's success: "Did you see that?" he said proudly.
Barnes had adhered to the 10-foot rule Shannon had been drilling into him - waiting until a person is out of earshot before saying anything derogatory. And Barnes had used their code word: One sack of potatoes is someone who is "merely overweight," Barnes explained. "Two point seven five and you have an ass like a . . ."

"John!" Shannon snapped. "Inappropriate!"

The life skills coach is a human prosthetic, a replacement not for a missing arm or leg but for a damaged frontal lobe. In his constant nitpicking - Barnes can't so much as toss a cigarette butt in Shannon's presence without a reprimand - Shannon does what Barnes's brain used to do. He corrects socially unacceptable behavior and mutes Barnes's impulses. Over time, Shannon thinks, Barnes's brain can be retrained so that he more closely resembles the person he used to be.

Left unclear is whether the color-aroused verbal assaults became part of John's color-aroused complex after the brain injury or whether the ideation, emotion AND behavior were typical of him even before the injury.

It does seem that the ideation he now expresses verbally was probably part of the "Southern Pride" aspect of his color-aroused complex even before he entered the Army.  What seems to be different (but not necessarily) is that after the shrapnel went through his brain he may have lost the ability or willingness to screen and filter his color-aroused ideation and mirth. 

He may have begun saying whatever he thought to perfect strangers whose skin color alone is the cue that commands a complex of color-aroused thoughts, emotions and sometimes at-least-verbal color-aroused antagonistic assaultive behaviors, of which the person of color cannot help but become aware.

His behavior was considered to have improved when, among the three components of color arousal-the ideation, emotion and behavior--he became able limit only the color-aroused antagonistic behavior toward strangers, while maintaining the color aroused ideation and expressing it to intimates, along with the emotions of disdain, superiority, anger and mirth.  It appears that just limiting the expression to strangers of what he thinks and feels is sufficient to be considered a victory, even if his ideation, emotion and expression of these to intimates continue unabated.

He is like a child who has lost the ability to chronically read pornographic magazines, but without speaking or commenting upon the words he is reading, except to intimates.  When he regains the ability to read pornography silently, and comment about it only to intimates, the child is considered to have achieved a key behavioral objective.  He continues to experience the color-aroused ideation and emotion, but limits expression of color-aroused ideation and emotions to intimates.

Do Blacks and Whites Benefit Equally from the Word and Concept of "Race"?

Professor Lawrence D. Bobo, Ph.D.
W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences
Harvard University

Dear Professor Bobo:

I am a Black blogger from the American Journal of Color Arousal (AMJCA), researching the use of the word "race" among America's Blacks.  I would like to pose a question regarding your use of the word "race" in an article at The Root entitled, "Time to End the Criminal-Punishment Binge."  

In your sentence as follows, what difference would it make if you removed the word "race" and inserted the term "skin color" instead?

Let us be the generation that undoes the connection between race and who populates our jails and prison.

I ask this question because if there is one thing that white supremacists and Black intellectuals can agree upon, it is the continued fundamental nature and necessity of the word and concept of "race." For example, here's what the white supremacist "Nationalist Party USA" says about "race:"

The Nationalist Party embraces the differences in Cultures and races, and allows for each group to embrace their own heritage -- while recognizing the right to live separately, if we choose; and to preserve our unique Culture and heritage. Nationalist Party USA (Emphasis added.)

Clearly the Nationalist party's belief in different "races" rationalizes, in their minds, their belief in and advocacy for segregation and white supremacy. And why not? Do we not segregate the dog species from the cat species at the dog pound?


It seems to me that as soon as we concede that we and whites are from different "races," we supply intellectual and moral support for white supremacists' belief in segregation, with separate and unequal roles for whites, Blacks and Latinos in society.
Here's another quote from the same website:

"The question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal, but why anyone would believe them equal."

As Prof. Levin points out, a book like Why Race Matters should not have to be written. The only sensible conclusion to be drawn from simple observation is that races differ: "To put the matter bluntly, the question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal in intelligence, but why anyone would believe them equal." For centuries, people as different as Arabs and Englishmen have judged Africans to be unintelligent, lascivious, jolly, and keen on rhythm. Today, in whatever corner of the globe one looks, blacks behave in certain consistent ways." Nationalist Party USA  (Emphasis Added.)

There you have it. White supremacists agree with many Black intellectuals, including Harvard University professor Lawrence D. Bobo, Ph.D., that Blacks and whites are from separate "races."  With white supremacists and Black intellectuals in agreement on this point, why should we even bother to consult the relatively new and opposite findings of the  U.S. Department of Energy's Human Genome Program which says:

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Human Genome Program devoted 3% of its annual Human Genome Project (HGP) budget toward studying the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) surrounding the availability of genetic information. Some of these projects studied potential effects of ELSI, and others sought to educate professionals through literature, conferences, workshops, and multimedia. Among the programs funded by DOE ELSI were educational materials for physicians, educators, students, clergy, and judges and other legal professionals. 

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.

Ari Patrinos, Director for Biological and Environmental Research, Office of Science, US Department of Energy, says on behalf of the DOE, in 'Race' and the Human Genome,

With very rare exceptions, all of us in the US are immigrants. We bring with us a subset of genes from our homelands, and for many Americans, often first-generation but more commonly second-generation, the plural noun 'homelands' is appropriate. From this perspective, the most immediately obvious characteristic of 'race' is that describing most of us as Caucasian, Asian or African is far too simple. Despite attempts by the US Census Bureau to expand its definitions, the term 'race' does not describe most of us with the subtlety and complexity required to capture and appreciate our genetic diversity. Unfortunately, this oversimplification has had many tragic effects. Therefore, we need to start with the science

( . . . )

In the end, each person must be treated as an individual with his or her own medical issues, rather than as an exemplar of a race. We anticipate a future in which accurate predictive medicine, based on one's individual genetic profile, will promote longer and healthier lives and a better ability to manage interactions with our environment and the challenges it constantly presents, be they allergens, diseases or environmental hazards. If nothing else, among so many potential benefits, the kind of solid science presented and discussed in this issue and at the Howard conference is providing proof that oversimplified concepts of race simply don't work in any objective realm. It's bad medicine, and it's bad science.   'Race' and the Human Genome,
 

Clearly what we have called "race" does not exist as a matter of science, yet the premise of "race" continues to be the single most fundamental commonality between white supremacists' arguments and those of Black intellectuals.  Do white supremacists and Blacks benefit equally from the ubiquitous use of the word "race'?  Historically, did we all benefit equally from the "N" word, whose use is just about as old as the word and concept of "race"? 

Words and concepts can empower and disempower whole classes of people.  We must either believe that whites gave Blacks the word "race" to empower us, or whites gave themselves the word "race" to empower whites. 

I propose that we Blacks challenge white supremacists, as well as journalists, newspapers and websites of all skin colors to cease and desist using the word "race," based on the new Human Genome Project declarations.  Rather than agree with white supremacists about "race" our strongest political high ground comes from insisting, based relatively new genomic science, that the word "race" be must be dropped from all public discussion of skin color, because race is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific and highly controversial political synonym for "skin-color group." 

Those who insist on continuing to use of the word "race" are "racists."

Sincerely,

Atty. Francis L. Holland
Brazil

Color Aroused Behavior Leads to Killing of Nine Employees at Hartford Distributors, in Manchest, CT.

There is plenty of evidence about color arousal among Americans, Black and white, going back to Brown v. Board of Education, and before. When people visually perceive the skin color and skin color groups of others and compare that with their conception of their own skin color and skin color group, people frequently experience unconscious and conscious color-aroused ideation, leading to color aroused emotion that often is acted out through color-aroused behavior.

On August 3, 2010, the New York Times reported in an article entitled, "A Bumpy Life Ends in Fatal Rampage," that:

Eight years ago, [Omar Thornton] started dating Kristi E. Hannah. . . .

Ms. Hannah’s mother, Joanne Hannah, said Mr. Thornton owned several guns, and wanted to teach Kristi how to shoot. 

Joanne Hannah said she and Mr. Thornton, who was black, once had an argument in which she used a racial epithet to describe him; he, in turn, called her a racist. “He was sick and tired of people being racist to him,” Ms. Hannah said.

When Omar Thorton dated a woman whose skin was white, the woman's mother assailed him with color-aroused epithets.  Some time later, he began buying guns.  Omar Thornton apparently was assailed with color-aroused epithets both from the family of his white lover and in the workplace, according to the New York Times.

Still, Mr. Thornton remained close to Ms. Hannah. He told her that things were not working out at his job, Joanne Hannah said; he complained that co-workers at Hartford Distributors were aiming racial insults at him. “Things were being put on the bathroom walls,” Ms. Hannah added — a racist slur “and a hangman noose.”

Could being "sick and tired" of others' perceived color-aroused and color-associated behavior prompt Thornton to engage in a killing spree that disrupts company productivity while removing a significant number of key workers from the corporate workforce?  The New York Times reported that Thornton's behavior seems "inexplicable" and perhaps it appears to be so, until the hypothesis of color-aroused behavior on the part of Thornton and co-workers is considered.

The Washington Post confirmed the reports of a skin-color-associated motive :

Woman says Conn. shooter complained of race bias
MANCHESTER, Conn. -- A woman who knows the driver who fatally shot at least eight co-workers and himself at a Connecticut beer distribution company says he had complained of racial harassment at work.

Joanne Hannah says her daughter dated Omar Thornton for the past eight years. She says her daughter had no indication he planned anything violent Tuesday morning after he was asked to resign from Hartford Distributors and refused.

Hannah says Thornton, a black man, had complained to his superiors about a picture of a noose and a racial epithet in a bathroom at the distributor. Her daughter told her the supervisors did not respond to his complaints.

The case of Omar Thornton, a deeply brown-skinned resident of Connecticut and 34-year-old beer truck driver, who shot eight co-workers and then committed suicide on Tuesday, August 2, 2010, provides a graphic example of color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior in the American workforce.


Omar Thornton told his sister and a police dispatcher that he was motivated to kill others at his work place by the skin-color-aroused of management and co-workers. Whether or not this is true, it is crucial that Thornton believed it to be true.   He had skin-color-associated beliefs regarding how he was treated by others, and these beliefs led to anger and resentment, which he manifested in the color-aroused killing of eight co-workers and himself.

There are very few avenues in the United States for people such as Mr. Thornton to get help in the face of what they believe is color-aroused animus directed toward them.  In spite of four centuries of political struggles and animosity related to skin color, professional groups such as the American Psychological Association and the America Psychiatrists Association do not offer generally available specialized training for treating those who harbor color-aroused ideation and emotion such as animosity and those whose color-aroused ideation and emotion lead to illegal color-aroused behavior.

This is not accidental.  Through the post-Reconstruction period in the United States, the Klu Klux Klan and other color-aroused antagonist organizations lynched Blacks and sought to create terror and obeisance.  The groups' behavior was often sanctioned by local police personnel who were sometimes members of the secret societies, and the brutality against Blacks was very rarely punished.

The behavior became "normal" and therefore outside of the scope of the work of psychologists and psychiatrists, who seek to identify and treat only abnormal behavior.  Color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior have only recently been identified as problematic by the American Psychiatric Association, and even then focuses on the harm to the victims rather than the emotional illness of the perpetrators.

Thornton told his sister that he believed workers at the factory were intentionally overloading the beer delivery truck he drove, based on color-aroused animus toward him.  He let his sister listen in via cell phone on a bathroom conversation between supervisors who called referred to Thornton with color-aroused epithets.

Although the temptation among many would be to deny that Thornton's homicidal actions were legitimate reactions to his experiences, whatever they were, nonetheless the constant denial of feelings such as Thornton's rather than screening and professional attention make it more likely that these color-aroused behaviors will be repeated in the future.

As is the multiple shooting and suicide case of Doug Williams at Lockheed Martin, and this time by a white man, the event occurred on the very day in which supervisors sought to challenge and confront behavior of the employee who engaged in a killing spree on the day of the meeting.  Doug Williams faced a "sensitivity training" on the day of his rampage, while Omar Thornton faced a disciplinary hearing alleging theft of beer from the beer delivery truck he drove.

The New York Times reported on August 10, 2003:

Factory Killer Had a Known History of Anger and Racial Taunts

MERIDIAN, Miss., July 9— When he overheard a black man complimenting a white woman a couple of years ago on the factory floor, Doug Williams stepped up to the man and, using a racial slur, angrily told him blacks had no business being with blond women, witnesses recalled today.

When a black colleague complained last month that the white protective shoe-covering Mr. Williams was wearing on his head looked like a Ku Klux Klansman's pointy hood, and his boss at the Lockheed Martin aircraft parts plant a few miles outside of Meridian told him to take the bootie off his head or go home, Mr. Williams went home, company officials said today

On Monday, Mr. Williams, 48, told his father he was ticked off that he would have to attend an ethics and sensitivity training course the next morning, the authorities say. A few minutes after it began, Mr. Williams left the room, returned from his pickup truck armed to the teeth, and began blasting away at close range at people who had known him, and known of his quick temper and simmering hatred, for years.

Aside from the skin colors of the color-aroused killers, their cases seem all too similar.  Color-aroused ideation and emotion lead to color-aroused murderous and suicidal behavior.  And yet, there is no indication in newspaper reports that either of these employers considered the possibility that a confrontation associated with these ideation and emotions could provoke a color-aroused violence. 

Lives can be saved if employers assume that alleged color-aroused provocations and allegations thereof indicate potentially violent and explosive situations in which psychiatrists should be called upon to screen those who allegedly have been involved in color-aroused provocations as well as those who allegedly have been the victims thereof.  In these cases, color aroused behavior and perception of color-aroused victimization in the workplace are among the predictors of color-aroused violent and murderous behavior.

Arguably, the failure to pursue professional psychiatric intervention in such cases could make employers liable in wrongful death actions, where they have failed to attend to the obvious risk of violence associated with color-aroused employees in the workplace.
 
Another obvious take-home lesson from the Doug Williams and Omar Thornton cases is that when workers are confronted formally with respect to behavior (their own or someone else's) that may be perceived as color-aroused, such confrontation meetings may well give rise to acute color-aroused ideation and emotion such that puts co-workers at greatly increased risk of violent color-aroused behavior. 

Employers have an obligation to workers that co-workers will be screened for dangerousness, regardless of their skin color, before confronting them about color-aroused victimization in the workplace, whether they perceive themselves as, or are, victims or perpetrators.  The Williams and Thornton cases, taken together, show that all workers, regardless of skin color, are at risk when color-aroused behavior and potential acute psychiatric color-aroused crises are ignored in the workplace.

Employers cannot make use of this crucial anecdotal information unless they first acknowledge at least the confronted employee's potential belief that the confrontations are associated with color-aroused behavior, whether by co-workers, the employer or the employee.  Such beliefs, actual behaviors and evaluation of the risk of consequent potential behaviors fall squarely within the expertise of psychiatrists and not that of "sensitivity trainers," untrained employers or even EEOC personnel.

Only competent psychiatrists have the training to conduct color-arousal screenings and to identify specific levels of color-aroused ideation, emotion and potentially dangerous color-aroused behavior.  Thornton and Williams were, by definition, "extremely" color-aroused, because their color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior included or led to one or more of the following consequences of color-aroused ideation, emotion, behavior and consequences:

• Actual or potential illegal behavior that risks criminal and/or civil penalties;
• Formal and or informal reprimands or reasonable potential for such in the school or workplace
• Loss of employment and/or future employment potential;
• Loss of earnings and/or future earning potential;
• Loss or potential disruption of social standing and repute;
• Loss of potential loss of life (theirs and/or someone else's);
• Loss, actual or potential disruption of family contacts;
• Loss, actual or potential disruption or disruption of educational/occupational studies or opportunities for study.
• Loss, actual or potential disruption or preclusion of romantic relationships;

It might be argued that potential loss of employment isn't sufficient reason to declare a patient's color-arousal to be "extreme."  However, the potential for intervention before extreme acts requires that the a high likelihood of such acts be seen as evidence of the extreme nature of the problem in an individual patient.  Anyone who shows an immediate potential and likelihood for engaging in behaviors, or who has engaged in such behaviors or spoken of a desire to do so must be perceived as "at risk" and receive the greatest possible support and intervention.  It does little good to identify mass murderers in retrospect, since the damage is already done. 

Potential mass murder/suicide victims, as well as those whose lives are diminished without being ended, must be identified using empirically based methods and case-based anecdotal measures to identify those who need most help so that they can contribute the most in their workplaces and other relationships.

Psychiatrists must conduct dangerousness assessments of potential aggressors, be they color-aroused antagonists or the victims of color aroused antagonists.  Within both groups there is the potential to kill and to suicide associated with their own color-aroused ideation and emotion and the color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior of others.

Color-Aroused Black Man Kills White Color Aroused Antagonist Co-workers in Connnecticut

Here is yet another incident in which a man who complained of color-aroused taunts from co-workers "suddenly" shot and killed at least eiight co-workers.  Would this have happend if the man and his color-aroused antagonist co-workers had undergone a screening and appropriate treatment for color-aroused disorder by a competent psychiatrist?   We really don't know because psychiatrists, as a rule, do not screen patients for color-aroused disorder.  Hating and taunting people because of their skin color is considered within the range of "normal" behavior by many psychiatrists, and so the warning signs of an imminent killing spree are missed until the hate speech turns into hate massacres.

Even then, psychiatrists do not come forward to discuss the psychiatric aspects of color-aroused rage and hatred.  Note that few if any stories about this case and the case below quote a psychiatrist about the color-aroused nature of the crime.  Yet, if eight people had died simultaneously of heart attacks, medical doctors would certainly be contacted to offer their expertise.

The Washington Post reports today:

Woman says Conn. shooter complained of race bias
MANCHESTER, Conn. -- A woman who knows the driver who fatally shot at least eight co-workers and himself at a Connecticut beer distribution company says he had complained of racial harassment at work.

Joanne Hannah says her daughter dated Omar Thornton for the past eight years. She says her daughter had no indication he planned anything violent Tuesday morning after he was asked to resign from Hartford Distributors and refused.


Hannah says Thornton, a black man, had complained to his superiors about a picture of a noose and a racial epithet in a bathroom at the distributor. Her daughter told her the supervisors did not respond to his complaints.


Hannah says Thornton called his own mother after the rampage "to say goodbye and that he loved everybody."

This case reminds me of the case of Doug Williams, a Lockheed/Martin employee who shot and killed several of his colleagues on the same morning when he was to participate in yet another "sensitivity training."  The New York Times reported on August 10, 2003:

Factory Killer Had a Known History of Anger and Racial Taunts

MERIDIAN, Miss., July 9— When he overheard a black man complimenting a white woman a couple of years ago on the factory floor, Doug Williams stepped up to the man and, using a racial slur, angrily told him blacks had no business being with blond women, witnesses recalled today.

When a black colleague complained last month that the white protective shoe-covering Mr. Williams was wearing on his head looked like a Ku Klux Klansman's pointy hood, and his boss at the Lockheed Martin aircraft parts plant a few miles outside of Meridian told him to take the bootie off his head or go home, Mr. Williams went home, company officials said today

On Monday, Mr. Williams, 48, told his father he was ticked off that he would have to attend an ethics and sensitivity training course the next morning, the authorities say. A few minutes after it began, Mr. Williams left the room, returned from his pickup truck armed to the teeth, and began blasting away at close range at people who had known him, and known of his quick temper and simmering hatred, for years.

Is sensitivity training really the only possible intervention for people who present clearly demonstrated that they present a danger to themselves and others?  Yes, without the intervention of the medical profession, only "sensitivity training" will be available to those who are armed and planning to murder their co-workers.

'Medicalizing the intent to kill co-workers would obviously force color-aroused people into counseling, even before they killed anyone. We should be careful,' saith I ironically, 'not to medicalize mass killers, calling them "sick", lest everyone who is potentially a mass killer find themselves labeled and painted with the same "I need help with color-aroused anger" brush.  At least that's the mentality that reigns in such decisions about treating a color-aroused worker and his color-aroused co-workers.

I wonder why the one-day "sensitivity training", if there was one for him and his co-workers, was unable to prevent a deeply troubled man from commiting a deeply troubled color-aroused act? I guess one-day trainings might not be sufficient for those who are armed and would like to slauhgter their co-worker.